United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. Campbell United States District Judge
Origami Owl LLC and Defendant Julie E. Mayo have filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. Docs. 108, 110. The
motions are fully briefed. Docs. 111, 112, 115, 120, 121. No
party requests oral argument. The Court will grant
Plaintiff's motion and deny Defendant's motion.
sells low-priced jewelry. Doc. 20, ¶ 13. The jewelry
includes lockets, chains, dangles, tags, bracelets, and
earrings. Id. Defendants West Coast Charms LLC
(“WCC”), Julie Mayo, and Ann Mayo are also in the
ornamental jewelry business. Id., ¶ 20. On
December 10, 2011, Julie Mayo sent an email to Christian
Weems, Plaintiff's Co-Founder and President, stating:
“I like your charms. I will be making some of your
designs also.” Doc. 111, ¶ 6. Ms. Weems sent an
email response the same day asking Julie Mayo not to copy
Plaintiff's designs, noting that Plaintiff “spent
thousands of dollars creating” them. Id.,
¶ 7. On December 24, 2011, Julie Mayo sent a second
email to Ms. Weems stating: “Customers are very
interested in your designs for me to carry. I will not make
them if can we [sic] work together.” Id.,
April and November of 2012, Plaintiff's counsel sent
three letters to Julie Mayo “asking her to cease and
desist from making and selling jewelry that infringes on
[Plaintiff's] copyrights.” Id.,
¶¶ 9-11. On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff's
compliance department sent Julie Mayo another letter advising
her that Plaintiff's audit of the internet had revealed
that her business sold unauthorized copies of Plaintiff's
copyrighted works, and again asked that she cease and desist
from making and selling the jewelry. Id., ¶ 12.
January 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, claiming
design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271,
trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, copyright
infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and unfair
competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Doc. 20. WCC filed
counterclaims against Plaintiff, including allegations of
direct copyright infringement, trademark infringement, common
law unfair competition, and attempted monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2.
Doc. 48, ¶¶ 38-124, 135-141. On February 11, 2016,
the Court entered a default judgement against WCC and
dismissed its counterclaims. Docs. 80, 81, 86. On January 17,
2017, the Court entered judgment against Ann Mayo pursuant to
a stipulation for entry of judgment. Doc. 118. Julie Mayo is
the last remaining defendant.
March 14, 2016, Julie Mayo filed for bankruptcy. The Court
stayed this matter until September 14, 2016, or until the
bankruptcy stay was lifted. Doc. 85. Following a final decree
from the bankruptcy court, the Court lifted the stay on
September 23, 2016. Doc. 100. Plaintiff alleges that Julie
Mayo has continued to offer and sell the infringing charms,
dangles, and heart-shaped glass lockets. Doc. 110 at 17-19;
Doc. 111, ¶ 20. Julie Mayo does not contest this
assertion in her response. See generally Doc. 115.
moves for partial summary judgment on its copyright and
patent infringement claims. Doc. 110 at 10-19. Plaintiff also
seeks a permanent injunction to prevent Julie Mayo
“from engaging in future copyright and patent
infringement activities.” Id. at 19-22. Julie
Mayo seeks summary judgment in her favor. Doc. 108.
seeking summary judgment “bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the
record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, shows “that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). Summary judgment is also appropriate against a party
who “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Only
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
will preclude the entry of summary judgment, and the disputed
evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Defendant Julie Mayo's Motion for Summary
motion fails to identify the claims, or parts of claims, on
which she seeks summary judgment. See Doc. 108. Her
motion is a steady stream of denials (id.,
¶¶ 1, 6), unsupported accusations (id.,
¶¶ 2-5, 8, 11), demands for a federal investigation
(id., ¶¶ 5, 10), threats of bar complaints
and criminal charges against Plaintiff's counsel
(id., ¶¶ 5, 9, 11, 17), and much
tangential and irrelevant information (id.,
¶¶ 12-15, 18). Defendant's assertions do not
show that Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law.
Additionally, Defendant fails to submit any supporting
documentation or to cite any portion of the record that would
support her arguments or establish the absence of a genuine
dispute. See Docs. 108, 120, 121. Accordingly, the
Court will deny Defendant's motion for summary
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
seeks summary judgment on its copyright and patent
infringement claims, and a permanent injunction to prevent
Defendant from engaging in infringing conduct in the future.
Doc. 110 at 10-22.
establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove two
elements: ‘(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2)
copying of constituent elements of the work that are
original.'” Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d
991, 994 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Feist Publ'ns, Inc.
v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)).
asserts that it owns valid copyrights in the works at issue,
and cites copyright certificates for each of the works. Doc.
110 at 10. Defendant responds by arguing that the copyright
certificates were procured by fraud, but provides no evidence
in support of fraud. Doc. 115, ¶ 3.
party presents a certificate of registration created less
than five years after the first publication of the
copyrighted work, the law recognizes a rebuttable presumption
that the party's ownership of the copyright is valid. 17
U.S.C. § 410(c); United Fabrics Intern., Inc. v. C&J
Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011). In this
instance, Plaintiff provides copyright certificates covering
all 42 items Plaintiff alleges to be infringed. See
Doc. 110-1 at 103-72 (Christian Weems Declaration, Exhibit
13). Each certificate was issued within five years of what
the certificate reports to be the product's first
publication. Id. Thus, ...